"But the world isn't like that"

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: "But the world isn't like that"


> Otto wrote:
>
> > Of course GWB isn't to compare to SH. But try to explain this to the
poor
> > Palestinian population (and all the millions of Muslims for example in
> > Indonesia and elsewhere) terrorized by the IDF with American arms.
>
> I don't think it is accurate or fair to identify the vast majority of
> Muslims, in Afghanistan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Indonesia, or elsewhere
> across the world, with terrorist extremism. Most Muslims and most Muslim
> nations deplore terrorism and these terrorist attacks in particular. Just
> like most non-Muslims.
>

I did not do that. Just watch the news, look at those mass demonstrations
against the USA, the burning flags and puppets even in moderate Arab
nations. Where do the suicide bombers Bin Laden, Hamas (and others) molest
come from? Why is it so easy for them to make young people die willingly for
their sinister purposes? What those terrorist organizations are doing
reminds me a lot of what the nazis did to the German youth before and in WW
II. To break them we must take the concerns of those young muslims
seriously. They consider suicide bombers as heroes, we must convince them
that the ones who are sending them into death are cowards.

> > F-16 and
> > Helicopters with rockets are certainly weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Using these weapons to stop terrorism is vastly different to using them to
> initiate terrorism.
>

Firing rockets at civil houses, at groups of many people including children
is not fighting terrorism. Israel is not fighting terrorism but an ilegal
war to keep the whole of Jerusalem, Palestinian soil and the illegal
settlements. Israel is violating 28 UN-resolutions. The muslim world looks
at it this way. The German government looks at it this way and doesn't
deliver spare parts to Israel any more. When I discuss with other Germans
about this I have to argue against much anti-Semitism still prominent over
here and spoken out by people who won't consider themselves as anti-Semites.

Therefor I'm against threatening Iraq with pre-emptive war, it would lead to
another rise of worldwide anti-Semitism.

> > Btw. the
> > Afghanistan war killed more civilians than the original terror attack on
the
> > WTC.
>
> But it's not just a matter of comparing death tallies.
>

But it is done, not only in Arab media. DER SPIEGEL does it in many articles
(mostly towards the end). It gives the impression that the life of a muslim
is worth only half of the life of a Westerner. This cannot be.

> > The better arguments were delivered by Pete Stark and others who hardly
> can
> > be called anti-American:
> > http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/10/stark/index.html
>
> I don't think the "I don't trust this President" argument holds much
water.
> What, so Pete Stark *does* trust Saddam Hussein?! In the end it was a
> conscience vote and after the debate about 80 or 90 of the Democrats
> supported the motion put to the US Congress. The alternative arguments
which
> were put forward were simply not convincing enough. And I don't think
> there's a case that "careful and cautious diplomacy" works with
terrorists.
> Saddam still has the opportunity to comply with the UN and avert war.
>

I disagree. It's been a vote to keep their seats.

The current US-government insists on a new, tougher resolution *before* the
inspectors return. But Iraq agreed last week even to open the so-called
"Saddam Hussein-palaces" to the inspectors.

Mr. Stark doesn't trust SH but I think he knows the Republicans better than
we foreigners do and I'm willing to listen to him. We cannot chase away
every dictator we don't trust without having *any* evidences. The latest
Blair-papers did not convince our Minister of Defense. It's been a mere
repetition of what we already know.

> > And there's still the unexplained fact the SH's WMD were good as long as
> > they were used against America's enemys.
>
> I don't think it's as simple as this either. But the question is what is
the
> best way to proceed now, not who did what to whom back then.
>

I absolutely agree to your second sentence. But it's Mr. Bush who is talking
continually about Hussein's pastime crimes, trying to use this knowledge as
a justification for his present course. It's only fair to remind him that
the US was wrong in the past too by supporting him, that the CIA is partly
responsible that he's such a dangerous person now. Who gave anthrax to him?

What worries me are the points Mr. Bush always forgets to talk about & to
say sorry for.

We have to convince the muslim world that we really care. This is a better
way to protect Israel from Scud-rockets and terrorism.

> >> Talk of "America in decline", patently absurd, exemplifies the
deep-seated
> >> conservatism which lies at the heart of much of the caterwauling
against
> > the
> >> international alliance against terrorism, and against the increasing
trend
> >> towards international mediation of world justice and equity issues. US
> >> politics is irrelevant. The American economy and standard of living
still
> >> exceed those of anywhere else on the planet by truckloads, no matter
how
> >> badly that wealth is distributed domestically.
>
> > This "no matter" is said too easily as long as people are homeless and
dying
> > of hunger.
>
> You misunderstood the statement. I was not saying that it doesn't matter
> that the distribution of wealth is inequitable in the US. I agree that it
is
> inequitable, and that this is bad. But my point was that the total wealth
of
> the US, and that wealth calculated on a per capita basis, exceeds that of
> any other nation. The US is not "in decline".
>

No, I didn't misunderstood it -- but the question of distribution does
matter, domestically and worldwide -- what does it mean to a homeless that
more money is spent on weapons (of mass destruction) then on welfare (citing
 Mr. Rumsfeld here who has said that "Germany chose welfare over defense"
when he was critisizing Schröder)?

> > On a statistical level the standard of living & welfare in
> > Canada, Sweden, Finland and other European countrys exceeds the US.
>
> I don't know if this is quite true either, in real terms, or by GNP
anyway,
> but I'm no economics expert. But I agree that the standard of living in
> Western nations is much higher than elsewhere in the world and this is
> something else which the UN has been trying to address and which the
> anti-everything protesters have baulked continually over the last decade.
>

I think that Western standards of living should be for everyone but the
terms of trade are based upon the poverty of the so-called Third World. This
criticism includes the EU too.

> > SH certainly is no ally of Bin Laden. He must fear the fundamentalists
as
> > well as the pro-Western Arab governments. So there's a big difference
> > between the war on terror and a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
>
> I don't know that you can be so sure that Saddam and Bin Laden aren't
> connected. (Where's the evidence?) But there will be no pre-emptive strike
> on Iraq if Saddam lets the weapons inspectors in and complies with UN
> requirements thereafter. That's the deal which is on the table.
>

Yes, where's the evidence that they're connected. Not a single clue has been
delivered by the hawks. As long as there are no evidences a suspect must be
regarded as innocent according to the values we claim to defend.

> > If SH
> > doesn't follow his obligations there should be air strikes on his
military
> > bases.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Certainly it's been a great mistake to attack the most powerful nation
of
> > the world with the most terrible terror attack the world has seen up to
now.
> > But one error cannot justify another one.
>
> In my opinion the greatest error would be to sit back and do nothing at
all.
>

We did not sit back but bombed the Taliban out of power. I repeat my request
that Mr. Bush fulfils his promise before he looks for new targets. Terrorism
is the task of the day (as Bali proves), not the Iraq.

> >> Why doesn't somebody organise a protest march against terrorism. I'd
bet
> >> you'd get a whole lot more of us poor dumb sheep, from every nation in
the
> >> world, out and doing.
>
> > I doubt that protest marches will help against either the terror or the
> > planned war.
>
> My point is that the majority of people in the world are opposed to
> terrorism, and eliminating the threat of terrorism should be and is the
> primary objective at the current time. It's this issue which the UN is
going
> to make its decision on. I don't trust most of the anti-Bush lobbyists or
> pre-emptive protesters on this point. They've got too many hidden agendas,
> warped perspectives, are too ill-informed and ignorant, and they offer no
> alternative solutions to the scourge which is terrorism.
>
> best
>

"Wir werden nötigenfalls den Krieg gegen den Terrorismus an zwei Fronten
kämpfen", sagte Bush. "Irak ist Teil des Kriegs gegen den Terrorismus."
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,218204,00.html

Please don't mix up the war against terror with the planned war against
Iraq. It's this mix-up done by Bush & Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rice without
informing their allies before that made the German government express their
position so clearly before the German elections.

Let me end this by expressing my condolences for the many murdered
Australians last Saturday.

Otto

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de